JUDGMENT
N.N. Mithal and G.D. Dubey, JJ.
1. These two appeals along with another FAF.O. No. 567 of 1978, Pushpa Rani v. Asha Hariya, had been filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nainital, dated 6th October, 1978. All these three appeals arose out of the same accident which is said to have occurred on 4.12.1976 in which one M.C. Hariya lost his life.
2. The appeal No. 567 of 1978 had been filed by the owner of the vehicle and has already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 11.3.1988. Out of two remaining appeals one has been filed by claimants being FARO. No. 667 of 1978 and other appeal has been filed by the insurance company being FA.F.O. No. 641 of 1978. Since the question of negligence on the part of the driver of the truck No. UPD 742 has been finally determined in appeal No. 567 of 1978 that question need not detain us any longer. The only question that remains is the amount of compensation which may be awarded to the claimants. Against a claim of Rs. 7,54,876/- the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,96,200/-to the various claimants. The appellants in F.AF.O. No. 667 of 1978 have urged that this amount is too low and the amount as claimed in the petition ought to have been awarded to them.
3. It is not disputed that deceased at the time of accident was 41 years of age and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,267/- per month. This amount, however, included a sum of Rs. 430/- towards house rent, Rs. 150/- towards conveyance reimbursement, Rs. 100/- per month by way of medical reimbursement and Rs. 125/- per month towards leave travel reimbursement. The Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount under the last three heads, i.e., conveyance, medical and leave travel reimbursements and has awarded Rs. 100/- per month only towards house rent. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, seriously challenged the finding regarding reduction in house rent compensation. The admitted position is that deceased was entitled to house rent allowance of Rs. 430/- per month but since his death the family has resided with his younger brother and for this reason the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- per month only towards house rent allowance. The learned counsel has urged that a fixed amount of Rs. 100/- per month is absolutely arbitrary and in these days it is not possible to get a reasonable accommodation for such a small rent. The appellant’s evidence, however, is totally silent on the question of house rent and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is not possible in appeal to hold that discretion exercised by the Tribunal was unjustified. We, therefore, repel this part of the submission of the learned counsel.
4. It was next urged that a deduction of Rs. 3,000/- has been made from the annual salary towards income tax payable on the salary received by the deceased. It has been pointed out that there were 3 life insurance policies on the record and the premium payable in respect thereof was, in any case, liable to be adjusted while computing the amount of income tax. It is also possible that deceased may have been contributing something towards provident fund and that amount also would be deductible from the net taxable income. PW1 Indrajeet Sethi who was Assistant Works Secretary of the J.K. Batteries where the deceased was employed had been examined and he had come to the court with the relevant records. No question was put to him regarding the income tax which was deducted from the salary of the deceased. In the absence of any material on record we do not think that the Tribunal was justified in deducting any amount towards the income tax. The finding, i.e., a deduction of Rs. 3,000/-may be made from his total annual income is, therefore, not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
5. The Tribunal has found that the deceased must have been spending about Rs. 6,000/-per year towards his personal expenses. Since the deceased was working as a Works Secretary in the J.K. Batteries it is quite obvious that he must be spending some money on himself. Since the family of the deceased was fairly large consisting of his mother, stepmother, wife, two daughters and three sons it would be reasonable to assume that he must be spending a larger amount of his salary on the maintenance of his family and comparatively a smaller amount on himself. In our opinion the deduction of Rs. 6,000/- per year appears to be too high and the amount should be reduced to Rs. 4,000/- per year.
6. It was next urged that longevity has been assessed at 60 years, although the mother of the victim aged 65 years was still alive and there was evidence to show that his father died at the ripe age of 91 years. Be that as it may, we do not think that longevity at 60 years has been wrongly assessed. It is true that longevity in the country has increased and in some cases even 65 years and 70 years has been taken as normal span of life but merely on that ground it cannot be said that the assessment made by Tribunal in this case was totally unjustified or wrong.
7. Lastly, it was urged that no compensation for loss of consortium has been awarded. Learned counsel, however, was not able to show any evidence on record as to how and in what manner the loss of consortium should or could be awarded to the claimants. In agreement with the Tribunal we, therefore, repel this submission.
8. In view of what we have said above we find that the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 28,544/-. Applying a multiplier of 15 years, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,28,160/-. This amount would never have been received in a lump sum because in the ordinary circumstance the deceased would have earned all these amounts over a period of 19 years. It is, therefore, reasonable to make a deduction by 33.3 per cent from this amount on account of lump sum nature of the compensation. The amount payable as compensation would thus come to Rs. 2,85,507/- or say Rs. 2,85,500/-. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,85,500/- from the respondents, out of which a sum of Rs. 90,000/-, which is liability of the insurance company, has already been deposited by it. The remaining amount will be recoverable by the claimants from the owner respondent.
9. The other appeal which has been filed by the insurance company has no merit. A faint attempt has been made to urge that under the terms of the insurance policy the appellant was liable only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. However, the original policy is not on the record and there is, thus, no ground to deviate from what the Tribunal has held. In para 29 of the written statement filed by the insurance company there is a clear admission that the extent of its liability was Rs. 90,000/-. In view of this we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.
10, In the result the appeal F.AF.O. No. 641 of 1978 is dismissed with costs while FAF.O. No. 667 of 1978 is partly allowed. Instead of Rs. 1,96,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal, claimants-appellants will now be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,85,500/- together with interest calculated at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. The liability of insurance company is fixed at Rs. 90,000/-. The balance amount will be recoverable from the owner-respondent. With these directions this appeal is allowed with proportionate costs against respondent No. 1.